More On:

A leading yoga company is accused of going through contortions rather than resolve a legal dispute related to a sale of non-core assets.

A suit brought by Cinedigm against Gaiam alleges the self-styled “Yoga for All” company is seeking to split itself in two before settling claims about the sale of its home-entertainment division in 2013.

The price also included an adjustment for net working capital attributable to the assets on their transition to Cinedigm.

According to court papers, Gaiam ultimately estimated working capital to be $7 million more than the $20 million both parties anticipated, whereas Cinedigm calculated it to be several million less.

Both sides initially agreed to arbitrate any legal discrepancy over the adjustment within 45 days.

But in the suit filed on March 4 in California federal court, Cinedigm not only claimed Gaiam is illegally resisting arbitration, but alleged diligence also uncovered “false statements of fact.”

As an example, Cinedigm charged Gaiam with hiding a $19 million contractual guarantee — a “concealment [that] resulted in Cinedigm having to pay millions of dollars to WWE.”

Cinedigm, run by Hollywood veteran Chris McGurk, now believes it is owed $30 million from a company that reported a year-end cash balance of $15.8 million.

Making Cinedigm even more skeptical was Gaiam’s revelation in the same year-end report that it’s considering a spin-off of its profitable yoga media division.

That would leave the legacy company primarily in the less-profitable, near-commodity business of yoga products.

Cinedigm was on to the alleged gambit in a filing Monday that called Gaiam’s arbitration delay “an end in and of itself.”

“If this spinoff is allowed to proceed, then Cinedigm will face even greater challenges when the time comes for it to collect on a favorable judgment,” Cinedigm said in the filing.

And so it plans on petitioning, it said, “for an order maintaining the status quo and preventing Gaiam from proceeding with the planned spin-off to protect Cinedigm’s ability to recover on what is likely to be a very substantial judgment in its favor.”